Citing the fact that witnesses had not yet been heard, the court ruled that Gürbüz, who has been in detention for approximately seven months, should remain in jail. The trial has been adjourned until 8 December

TANSU PİŞKİN, ISTANBUL

The first hearing in the case against journalist Nadiye Gürbüz, who has been in pre-trial detention for approximately seven months, on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization” was held at the 25th Istanbul High Criminal Court on 15 September 2026.

At the hearing, which was monitored by P24, the Gürbüz and her lawyers were present. Journalists and Gürbüz’s relatives also attended the hearing.

Beginning her defense by stating that she had been a journalist for 29 years, Gürbüz said, “I am a socialist journalist and I was arrested for this. The prosecution’s indictment clearly states that I was arrested because of the news articles I published in Atılım newspaper and ETHA (Etkin News Agency),” and continued as follows: 

“There are nine statements from informants in the indictment. All of the informants have stated that I am a journalist. Anyone who looks at social media can see this information. Time has been wasted getting nine people to say what everyone already knows. Through their statements, the witnesses have declared the Atılım newspaper and ETHA to be illegal, and their staff to be members of an illegal organization. Neither the Atılım newspaper nor ETHA is affiliated with any illegal organization or party. They do not take instructions from anyone whilst carrying out their publishing activities. I have never witnessed anything of the sort during any period of my employment.”

“An address where I do not reside was presented as my place of residence and raided by the police. None of the material found there belongs to me. Following my arrest, the prosecutor’s office used social media posts as evidence against me, claiming that the organization had come to my defense. I am a journalist; it is normal for professional organizations and journalists to share posts and show solidarity.”

Finally, drawing attention to the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) reports included in the indictment, Gürbüz said, “The MASAK reports included in the indictment even list payments I made for rent, to my daughter and to my friends. Are we not allowed to use a bank account just because we are socialists?” 

She then concluded her defence by requesting her release.

Witnesses were heard

Following Gürbüz’s defense, journalist Pınar Gayıp, listed as a witness in the case file, was called to the hearing. Gayıp was asked about the money sent by Gürbüz as recorded in the MASAK report. Gayıp replied, “I must have been unable to pay my rent or a bill; Nadiye supported me. There is no other explanation.”

Gürbüz’s flatmate was also called as a witness and questioned about the money transfers mentioned in the MASAK report. The witness explained the transfers on the grounds that they shared the same flat with Gürbüz and therefore had joint payments.

Confidential witness connected

O.D., one of the case’s confidential witnesses, began giving evidence via the judicial videoconferencing system (SEGBİS). Stating that they had never met Gürbüz in person, the witness said the following:

“I know the individual from her interviews on the website and from what members of the organization have mentioned. I know she works for ETHA and am aware of its press and publishing activities. ETHA is also the MLKP’s press and publishing organ. I know no further details.”

Lawyer Hanbayat: “There is an acquittal ruling in a previous case”

Speaking after the witnesses, Meral Hanbayat, one of Gürbüz’s lawyers, stated that a duplicate investigation and case had been opened against Gürbüz on the same allegations, that an acquittal had been handed down in the case, and that this decision had been upheld. She requested her client’s release, saying:

“My client was re-arrested and detained on the very same allegations one year after the acquittal was upheld. The allegations are the same: working at the Etkin News Agency. Whilst my client was in detention due to this latest case, an investigation was opened against her on the very same grounds. Had she not been in detention, she would have been arrested on the same charge again. In other words, my client may appear before you time and time again on the basis of the same allegations.”

“All nine informants stated that they recognized Gürbüz as a reporter working at ETHA. The conditions for being a member in an organization are clearly set out in the law; hierarchy and continuity are required. There is no such situation here. We are discussing Nadiye Gürbüz’s journalistic activities and her work at ETHA and the Atılım newspaper.

“In accordance with the principles of legality and individual responsibility, the defendant’s specific acts and conduct must be established, and the charge must be framed accordingly. However, if the principle of legality is interpreted so poorly and stretched to such an extent, anyone could be deemed a member in an organization.”

Court decides to continue the detention

Following the defense statements, the prosecutor, in presenting their final opinion on the case, requested that the defendant’s detention be continued, citing reasons such as the nature and characteristics of the offense, the current state of evidence, and the fact that judicial supervision measures would be insufficient at this stage.

After a brief recess, the court panel announced its decision, ruling that Gürbüz’s detention should continue on the grounds that the witnesses had not yet been heard.

The case was adjourned until 8 December 2026.

Background of the case

Nadiye Gürbüz was detained as part of an operation launched by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office across 22 cities on the morning of 3 February 2026. Brought to Istanbul Courthouse on 5 February, Gürbüz was referred to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace along with 56 others, with a request for their detention. The court issued a detention order for 47 individuals, including Gürbüz, on the grounds that “evidence had not yet been gathered and there was a risk of flight or concealment.”

In the indictment filed by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, it was requested that Gürbüz be punished for the offense of “membership in a terrorist organization.” The prosecution alleged that the MLKP’s public organizations included the Etkin News Agency (ETHA), the Federation of Socialist Youth Associations (SGDF), the Socialist Women’s Councils (SKM), the Platform for the Voices of the Immortals and the Imprisoned (ÖTSP), the Atılım newspaper and various magazines.

The indictment included nine statements of active repentance made by Gürbüz in the course of various investigations. These statements contained claims that Gürbüz had worked as a reporter for ETHA, had been involved in the MLKP’s public activities, had previously worked for SKM, and had been active in the press sector. Some of the statements also alleged that Gürbüz had conducted training sessions and discussions on behalf of the MLKP, had held a position of responsibility within the organization, and had participated in commemorative events and activities.

The prosecution also stated that Gürbüz attended the MLKP’s 30th anniversary event and the Suruç commemoration on 20 February 2025, and that she conducted an interview with İbrahim Çiçek, who is described as a senior member of the MLKP Central Committee and is listed in the “red category” of the Most Wanted Terrorists List. The indictment stated that, according to Gürbüz’s HTS records, she had communicated with 281 individuals under investigation for terrorist offenses, whilst the MASAK report indicated that she had made financial transfers to two individuals featured in the same investigation file as 28 people under investigation for offenses related to terrorism.

The prosecution alleged that the MLKP Central Committee’s instructions were published on ETHA’s social media accounts and that the organization’s actions were shared on ETHA’s website and claimed as its own.

The indictment also included the allegation that “documents related to the organization”—subject to numerous seizure and prohibition orders—were seized during a search of the address where Gürbüz was detained, as well as details of a Google Meet meeting in which Gürbüz participated.

The prosecution characterized Gürbüz’s hunger strike whilst in detention as an “organizational stance,” whilst also arguing that she had made posts of an organizational nature on her social media account and that, following her arrest, numerous posts about her had been published on social media accounts disseminating the organization’s ideas and ideology.

Relying on evidence obtained in the course of the investigation, the prosecution alleged that Gürbüz had participated in events organized on behalf of the MLKP and in accordance with the organization’s calls, had carried out actions and activities on behalf of the organization, and had engaged in activities to recruit new members for the organization. The indictment stated that there was sufficient suspicion of a criminal offense to warrant the bringing of a public prosecution against Gürbüz for the impugned crime.